Yes, laws prevent it. Do you believe that banning AK-47s entirely will stop anyone who is already willing to risk 10 years in the pen by converting
the currently legal semi-automatics to fully automatic? Criminals will not be deterred by banning semi-automatic AK-47s. It will merely take the
weapon out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

But to that end, even a lowly Ruger 10/22 can be (illegally) converted to a fully automatic. Should those be banned, too?

So - you shouldnt enact common sense laws because people will just break them?

I guess you shouldn't lock your doors at night because people will just pick the lock. Maybe you should leave the top down on your convertable with
the expensive stereo still intact. I mean - they could just rip out the fabric and take it anyways.

The point of any law is to deter the common criminal from doing it. Law is not a magical force field that, once enacted, physically prohibits anyone
from doing it. The secondary purpose of any law is to allow means for consequence.

Getting in a knife fight is different than getting in a fist fight.

Even if someone dies in both instances.

Whats the difference?

Assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill

Murder with a deadly weapon...stuff like that ( i dont know the exact terms, im not a lawyer)

But i do know there are differences

You make the argument that we should not enact laws simply because they'll be broken.

I agree with you on this: they will be broken.

But how many more people do you think would do 105mph on the interstate through Illinois if the speed limit signs (that say 65) didnt exist?

I understand what you're saying, but you can pass all manner of laws intended to deter crime if you're willing to encroach on the rights of the vast
majority of citizens who will never commit the crimes the law is intended to prevent. I don't think it will prevent weapons crime, so in the end,
I think it just punishes law-abiding citizens unfairly and unjustly.

My main concern is that it won't end there. The line between a hunting rifle and assault rifle is a blurred one. Back to that Browning BAR I
mentioned: if someone comes out with a 30 round magazine for it, would it now fit the definition of an assault rifle? Of course it would. It has
essentially the same functionality as a civilian AK-47. The only reason its not on the gun ban hit list is because no one as of yet has manufactured
anything larger than the 3-5 round factory mags.

The thing that really concerns me is when I see the SKS on the list. It has a fixed 10 round magazine. That's getting frighteningly close to
'hunting' rifle territory. For the first ten rounds, even a decent lever rifle marksman won't fall very far behind in the ability to make quick,
aimed shots.

Instead of the weapon itself, I would be much more willing to listen to a ban on large capacity magazines (>10 rounds) or perhaps forcing a similar
non-detachable magazine system as the SKS. I'm not immediately in favor of that, but its something I would consider as a worthwhile compromise. The
assault rifle's power relative to other firearms derives from its ability to yield a large number of quick follow up shots, definitely not the
power of each individual round by comparison. Limit that former ability and you neutralize the weapon's added effectiveness in comparison to
'acceptable' rifles on the market.

Cannot saw off the barrel past a certain length without a very hard to get permit.

Has to have a "plug" in it at all times. if you are hunting, and a game warden wants to pop your barrel and check for a plug - and you dont have it
- big time trouble.
The plug prohibits more than 3 shells being loaded at any one given time.

When i set back and think about it, here's what *I* would propose for "Common sense gun laws"

All fully automatic assault weapons are off limits. You can collect them, as long as its disarmed (like hand grenade collectors. The explosive
chamber is filled with lead)

You classify what is standard for recreation and hunting. All other weapons fall into various levels, each level requires certain permits.

(example): A shotgun is legal. Just need a FOID card.
A sawed off shot gun is illegal, unless you have the proper permit, which requires extensive background checks, and a waiting list.
Afterall - whats the rush?

You could apply this across the board, much like it is today.

Common sense gun laws say you don't need an Uzi. Period. Can't hunt with it because the recoil disallows any sort of aim. Its a "spray and
pray" weapon. You hit something out of sheer spray of bullets.

A .30/30 is fine because it would take severe retrofitting to make something like that fully automatic. In essence, it's no longer a .30/30. Its a
new gun all together. That blurred logic can be applied to any weapon.

An AK-47 is different. It takes a simple conversion. yes - you need a special permit for it - great, lets keep it that way. But lets add a tier to
that equation.

You need a very special permit to obtain an AK 47 in the first place.

Why?

its a military grade weapon. There's a reason its the gun of choice for some terrorists. Just like the M4A1. Its created to kill and destroy, not
hunt or skeet.

"common sense" gun laws proposals from Obama are just what i've talked about.

I agree with you up to a point. I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment is entirely about hunting, but also self-defense and as a last-ditch
national defense. That's more of an academic argument here, however; I personally would not feel underarmed even if the SHTF and all I had was a
.30-30. But many would. I also disagree on having a magazine plug at all times. Hunting? Sure. Home defense? Definitely not.

I also disagree that the AK has no use as a hunting weapon. Like the AR-15, I think they're perfectly acceptable hunting rifles in their civilian
format. But we've been through that and will have to agree to disagree.

Uzis? Its a worthless piece of garbage and indeed has no other use than military (and barely has that). Encase them all in concrete and drop them to
the bottom of the Atlantic for all I care.

Truth be told, I don't think we're incredibly far apart on the subject. I disagree with most aspects of an AWB, but I'm not 100% against your
position in principle. I think the main difference is that you trust the government not to overstep and ban far more than they should. I think
they'd probably use it as a pretext to incrementally ban firearms until virtually all were gone. I've just seen too much gun banning overseas in
recent years to not get paranoid anytime gun legislation is hinted. I don't want the US to be like Britain where in 10 years we're talking of
banning pointy objects.

Its really not a partisan issue for me. Its part of the reason I won't vote for Obama, but its also part of the reason I couldn't support Romney or
Giuliani on the other side. I only give McCain's on-again, off-again gun control antics a pass because he's been on the right side of the assault
weapons ban every time its come up. Its pretty much my litmus test on the issue. That's not to say I trust him 100% on it.

McCain's on-again, off-again gun control antics a pass because he's been on the right side of the assault weapons ban every time its come up.
Its pretty much my litmus test on the issue. That's not to say I trust him 100% on it.

I believe in common sense gun laws. I would change my own direction a little, if this decision were up to me, and say you could own an AK47, but i
believe you need to go through an extensive background check, and pay permit fee's, waiting period, etc, prior to.

He did vote against the AWB in '94 and was against the reauthorization. He also includes it as a part of of his official campaign platform. But
believe me, I know that McCain is far from perfect on the issue of gun rights overall, hence my statement about his 'on-again, off-again' support
of the issue overall. I generally give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is something that concerns me a little. Again, Republicans,
Democrats...there are gun banners on both sides of the isle. Just more at the present time on the Dem side.

Obama concerns me on the issue because its difficult to know just how much restriction he wants. That in itself is worrisome because we do know for a
fact that he wants new gun control laws and to make the assault weapons ban permanent (something I do not agree with). I do wish he would be asked
to go into specific detail on the issue. Does he support HR 1022 or something more or less restrictive? I don't know. That particular bill is
much more restrictive than the '94 version as it does not include a 'grandfather' clause.

On the issue of what laws should be in effect, I don't have a problem with the background checks and such as long as anyone with a clean criminal
history (including the occasional misdemeanor) can pass. It shouldn't be ridiculously difficult so as to itself act as a form of a ban. I also
have no problems with requiring a gun safety course for first time buyers. Licensing and registration? Not as much. Again, it goes back to the
trust issue and I really don't trust the federal government with a database of gun owners and the weapons they own.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin THE OP Was dead on target Bud .
Obama Is Nothing More Than Any Other DemoCrap ! He's As Anti Gun As The Rest Of Them . You Are Blind ! Any Body That Supports Oslimea Hussein Is A
Damn Fool !And Just To Let You Know , I Am Also A Bow Hunter And Have Hunted All My Life. Most People Don't Hunt With Semiauto AK'S Or Whatever You
Care To Call Them ,THEY ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS . But If A Person WANTS To Hunt With Them LET THEM ! I Hunt With A Bolt Action rifle But I Have And
Still Do Use My Semi Auto HUNTING RIFLE On Occasion . I Don't Trophy Hunt And I Don't GUT SHOOT Any Animal. I Am An Ethical Hunter And When I Take
My Shot I ALWAY'S Hit The Vital Area , And You Know What I'm Talking About Don't You ! Anyway's If I Just Happen To Have To Make That Rare
Running Follow Up Shot Then I Can With A Bolt Action As Well With The Semi Auto . The Semi Auto Is Much Faster Doing That But I Can Pretty Much Do The
Same Rate As A Semi With My Bolt ,Not Quite But Almost . And In Answer To Your Thinking Of The Holes That Slugs Make . Have You Ever Seen The EXIT
Holes On An Animal When Bow Hunting With A MECHANICAL Cutter Head On Your Arrows ? They Also Leave A BIG HOLE !

Back to the topic, I think its pretty clear that with attitudes among gun owners as they are, any sweeping ban will run the risk of open revolt
among the civilian population in most areas between the Rockies and Appalachians. The more they try to ban, the more likely it would be. Anything
resembling a full ban would virtually guarantee it and for good reason. It would probably be unorganized at first, but all it would take would be
for a state such Montana to leave (and they threatened secession prior to the outcome of Heller vs DC) and others would certainly follow. Civil War
part 2 would ensue.

Thanks for the back on topic post. I have pretty much the same general vision myself as to the outcome. Knowing this I have to think what kind of
monster or idiot would even think about bringing this about? Lot to think on. More than just an election or ideology. Its a matter of intelligence and
lack of vision and anticipated outcomes.

I think most of the politicians who support these broad gun bans are well-meaning, but just generally clueless and ignorant on the issue. Most of
them don't own guns and don't even know anyone that does (except their armed security detail, of course). They've lived all their lives on the
West Coast, New York City or Boston and have no idea how the rest of America lives or what its values are. All they see are the reports from the
streets from those cities and yeah, I can understand where you'd be anti-gun if that's all you saw.

Honestly, I don't think they have the slightest clue that there are literally millions of Americans who feel as strongly about gun rights as is the
case or that those same people in America's heartland are perfectly responsible gun owners. Of course, for many of the same politicians, the 150
million people in America's heartland are completely irrelevant anyway.

"Please - by all means - go reread the article and actually post something about the topic, and not the poster.. its kind of frowned upon around
here."

"is that what you meant to post and just messed up? ...or did you actually intend to post off topic? "

"Are you done posting off topic?
I would go rewrite the OP in crayon, but ATS doesnt have that font. "

And from page 2:
"If both are the same (which is the argument i make)
then which would you do?
You can choose "neither" and explain why
but you chose to discuss something all together difference.
Talk about the thread, or go bother someone else."

From this we are just short of moderator intervention and warnings. And this follows through on several political threads and posts.

Please avoid being baited off topic by this poster. Investigate the actions and decide for yourself.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.